I can see how that looks more like a definition of model, but what kind of theory wouldn't also allow for something like that? TBF I don't know if I could say the difference between 'theory' and 'model'. Perhaps 'model' is used for something more specific & particular?
-
-
This is a fundamental distinction that, unfortunately, is too often disregarded and one critical reason why, in my view, many psychologists misunderstand the complexities of building computational models
-
I'm not sure I fully understand the difference. Is implementation here the actual coding langauge/software (which I guess would be similar to Marr's levels)? Is it still common for psychologists to use these kinds of models tied to specific code?
-
Grace, I'm really sorry I have a migraine (been 3 weeks now), so I am going to link to something I wrote and get back to prepping a talk: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2013.05.001 … When I feel better/have less on my plate I'll come back — also I am sure Esther and others can do a great job. Sorry!
-
Also just to be clear the answer is in what I linked to but I obviously would rather talk it out over Twitter since I know it's useful in and of itself.
I promise to return when I get some headspace/spoons back! -
Olivia is the expert here but plainly put, the main difference is that the implementation (code) includes many instructions that are alien to the theory itself and that are required for the program to work.
-
Ok, I'm seeing the complications that can arise from this situation.
-
A Bayesian conception of the distinction might be model = structure, implementation = structure + params + data.
-
If by parameters you mean their specific values , not the ontology, then I agree

- 18 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
